Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews termination, reasonable efforts and visitation disputes in DCF case
Summary
Appellate counsel for a father in a DCF case told the appeals court that, before removal, the family had housing and services and that reduced visitation and service access deserved closer scrutiny; the Commonwealth and children’s counsel defended the trial judge’s finding that the father’s violence and noncompliance rendered him unfit.
Attorney William Comeau, representing the appellant father in a Department of Children and Families matter, urged the appeals panel to examine the record on removal, reasonable efforts and visitation. Comeau said that prior to the September 2022 removal the father had employment, housing and was agreeable to services; he argued the removal and later termination proceedings merited close review and raised procedural questions about the department’s service delivery and the court’s oversight of visitation scheduling.
The Commonwealth, through Claire Gilchrist, asked the panel to affirm the trial court’s termination order. Gilchrist said the judge correctly found by clear and convincing evidence that the father’s demonstrated violence and inability to control aggression rendered him unfit and that both older children suffer trauma and behavioral needs requiring structured services. She pointed to multiple incidents, school reports and medical/therapy needs that supported the trial court’s findings.
Appellate counsel pressed the court on visitation. Comeau argued DCF reduced visits over time — from weekly to biweekly to monthly — and that the department’s policies about ordinary visitation frequency should not supplant a court’s ability to order sufficient contact to preserve parent–child relationships. He suggested judges should be able to require more frequent contact where the child’s bond and rehabilitation depend on it, and urged clearer processes for raising and resolving inadequate visitation while a case is pending and counsel remains in the trial court.
Children’s counsel Tamika O’Brien supported the termination decision and described the children’s complex needs: repeated exposure to domestic violence, school behavioral plans, post‑traumatic stress symptoms and specialized placements. O’Brien underscored that the father had been defensive with providers, missed services and had inconsistent compliance, which the trial court relied on in concluding reunification was not reasonably likely.
The panel asked about procedural mechanics — including what trial counsel must do when a notice of appeal is filed and how to move quickly to address reduced visitation while the case is active. The court did not deliver a ruling at argument; it took the case for decision.
